71. Host Leadership in the age of the strongman

Might Donald Trump be a host leader? Revisiting my 2022 Host Leadership Gathering keynote in the light of current events.

Donald Trump’s 2024 election win brings back into focus a question I was pondering some years ago. Might Trump be a host leader? After all, he seems to spend a lot of time paying attention to (or at least accepting the adulation of) his ‘base’, who appear to see him as a kind of father figure, redeemer and someone who is on their side. (Spoiler alert - he isn’t.)

But what are the specific ways we might examine how Trump is, or is not, acting in a host leader way. I first examined this publicly in 2022 when I prepared and delivered a keynote for the Host Leadership Gathering that year. The event was online, organised our friends Pierluigi Pugliese and Connexxo Italia and a good success in its own terms. However, the reappearance of Trump in a position of authority means it’s time to look again at how he works and how he doesn’t, to see what we might expect in the next four years and what lessons might be learned from his popularity.

Rise of the strongmen

There has been a rise in the number of ‘strongman’ leaders around the world since the start of the 21st century (according to Gideon Rachman’s excellent book The Age of the Strongman (2022). Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey, Xi Jin Ping in China, Modi in India, Trump, Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Orban in Hungary. My 2022 list included then-UK-prime-minster Boris Johnson, but he failed the test of keeping his own party onside and was forced from office later that year. I also listed Bolsonaro, defeated at the Brazilian ballot box at the end of 2022.  It seems to me that there is a range from those who have subverted whatever democracy existed before them to stay in power (Putin, Xi, MBS) to those who have changed electoral systems and taken media control (Orban) to those like Modi who still win broadly-fair elections on a nationalist ticket. Trump, of course, led a mob to storm the US Capitol and denies he lost the 2020 election in the USA which, one might think, should have disqualified him from participating in future. It remains to be seen how American democracy will fare in his next term.   

Individual vs community focus?

Might these strongman leaders be host leaders? After all they have a strong community focus. A key way to see this focus for what it is comes from historian Francis Fukuyama’s excellent 2022 book Liberalism and its Discontents. Fukuyama made his name with a 1989 book entitled The End of History, saying that with the fall of communism the rise of liberal democracy around the world was inevitable. This was a dramatically wrong conclusion, of course. Fair play to Fukuyama for revisiting the topic and examining why liberalism has receded so far. The book title, incidentally, is a deliberate play on Sigmund Freud’s 1929 work Civilisation and its Discontents; both books argue that the most ardent proponents of the topic end up undermining it.

Fukuyama draws a key distinction between ‘liberal universalism’ and ‘community exceptionalism’. He writes:

“Nationalists have a similar complaint to that of religious conservatives: liberalism has dissolved the bonds of national community and replaced it with a global cosmopolitanism that cares about people in distant countries as much as it cares for fellow citizens.

The substantive conservative critique of liberalism—that liberal societies provide no strong common moral horizon around which community can be built—is true enough. This is indeed a feature and not a bug of liberalism.”

This distinction helps clarify one aspect of strongman leadership; it is more concerned with national community than with egalitarian internationalism. Might this not be just the kind of place where host leadership might flourish? After all, they have a community focus, there is clear boundary setting (part of the Gatekeeper role in our host framework), there is a strong sense of identity and the interests of this community (the ‘base’) are said to be uppermost.

Understanding the ‘strongman’

There was a fashion for strongman leadership in Europe in the 1930s. Franco, Hitler, Mussolini… It didn’t take the outbreak of World War II for this leadership style to be questioned and parodied. Scoop was a 1938 novel by English satirist Evelyn Waugh which was set around a fictitious newspaper, the Daily Beast. Early in the book the young reporter William Boot is introduced to the views of the paper’s owner, Lord Copper:

"The Beast stands for strong mutually antagonistic governments everywhere," he said. "Self-sufficiency at home, self-assertion abroad.“

Just after Trump’s 2016 election win, I heard a well-informed radio commentator remarking that to understand Trump, one should look back to this kind of view. We had become accustomed, at least regarding allies, to thinking that supportive and cooperative relations were preferred. (I still think they are – both sides get more.) One could perhaps be strong and supportive. But Lord Copper, and Trump, see this as giving in, not winning out. If international relations are seen as a zero-sum game (another trait often attributed to Trump) then for us to be winning, someone else has to be losing. (Again, I dispute this – it’s quite possible to have win/win results where everyone benefits.)

So if strength is shown in mutual antagonism, then antagonising foreigners becomes a desirable goal. And, of course, it doesn’t stop there. The strongman leader doesn’t only antagonise on the international stage, they do it at home too. Anyone who gets in the way can be classed as an opponent to be attacked, ridiculed, sidelined, despised. The base loves it. We’ve seen this playing out over the past months; Harris presented an inclusive (if rather vague) vision for the future, while Trump insulted her as ‘horrible’. ‘far-left’, criminal (without evidence) and so on.

What might be a national community turns out to be a very partial place indeed. Immigrants, Muslims, climate scientists, college-educated, book-reading, peace-promoting, dialogue-building, cat-loving, pro-choice people are not welcome – they are the enemy, on a par with the Iranians and the Chinese. 

Seven ways that Donald Trump is not a host leader

Let’s look more closely at how this all works, the ways Trump will act and what he might do instead if he were more of an actual host leader.

Cult of personality

Strongman leaders place themselves at the centre of a cult of personality.  “I alone can do this…”. It’s all about me the leader, not these other people who are in place because they are (they say) loyal to me. A host leader would still be at the centre while stressing that their team is key, recruiting people on competence and experience. It seem no accident that Trump is recruiting his cabinet based apparently exclusively on loyalty; a TV host for Defence Secretary, anyone?  

A strong focus on ‘Others’

In order to keep this nationalist constituency together, strongman leaders need a steady flow of ‘Others’ to blame for all ills and point to in order to distract from their own behaviour. The promotion of divisiveness is therefore a key weapon in the strongman armoury. Expect not only to see the usual suspects being Othered, but also those who fail the loyalty test and are expelled from the inner circle. As I mentioned above, zero-sum thinking is a key trait of Trump and those around him. It’s not enough to win, the others must lose and be seen to lose. And when those others are your own citizens, your allies, your erstwhile international partners, then that doesn’t bode well. A real host leader would be more concerned for how to bring in others, take account of different views and create a better and more effective ‘We’.

Centralising power

Strongman leaders don’t feel they can trust others. Even those who say they are loyal can be corrupted by knowledge, facts, decency and concern for others. It’s therefore essential to centralise power as much as possible. This has the added advantage of building dependency; nobody can act unless I say so. Host leaders much prefer sharing power, engaging others and encouraging people to get on with their (delegated) responsibilities. That way more gets done AND capacity is built for the future. We hear today that Trump wants to appoint his cabinet without the usual Congressional approval - completely in character.

Don’t want people to think independently

This goes along with the trend to centralise power. The first thing a good acolyte does when told to jump is to ask ‘how high?’. Accept what you are told and get on with it. If you don’t accept it, you are Othered. (By the way, have you noticed then when North Korean ‘strongman’ Kim Jong Un is pictured, he is always surrounded by officers clutching pads and pencils to write down his indispensable wisdom?) Host leaders would much rather their people think, propose, challenge and discuss. Ideas – and help – are welcome gifts, not signs of imminent destruction.

Kim Jong Un surrounded by notebook-wielding acolytes at a shoe factorr

Unable to tolerate criticism

Strongman leaders are unable to tolerate criticism – either in public or in private. This connects with the ‘strict father’ frame noted by linguist and author George Lakoff in his excellent analysis of Trump’s language. Strict fathers, as the head of their family, demand obedience and are swift to punish; not a willing recipient for criticism, however well-intentioned. (The opposite model, much more in tune with host leadership, is the nurturing parent; more familiar to liberals who see more value in possibility than in blind acceptance.) This kind of language also comes from Trump’s family; only this week his son Don Jr said of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “you’re 38 days from losing your allowance!”. Remember that Zelenskyy is the elected president of a nation under siege, not some errant child.

Keen to blame others

Strongman leaders are always keen to blame others – because the Others are the enemy, and are out to get us. Somehow nothing is ever the leader’s fault. Host leaders, of course, are willing to accept responsibility for failures and for successes, as well as share responsibility with their teams and ‘guests’. Trump will go to his grave insisting that everything he did would have worked – ‘if it wasn’t for those pesky kids!’ (just like in Scooby Doo).

Won’t follow their own rules

Strongmen are keen to set rules for everyone else. They are less keen on following them. It has long been an idea in liberal democracies that no one is above the law. In the UK the downfall of Boris Johnson was in large part due to his failure (and conviction) to follow lock-down rules that he was on TV telling us about every evening. The British people will put up with a lot, but most of them draw the line at being taken for fools by privileged politicians who ought to know better. Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the president is immune from prosecution for acts undertaken in that role, we look to the future with dread. Host leaders, of course, are keen to follow their own rules and be seen to be doing so; just as hosts eat the same food as their guests, they are bound by the same codes.

Conclusions

What will the second Trump term bring? Nobody knows. Not even the president himself, one suspects. If his first term is anything to go by, it will be a masterclass in how to reduce the influence of a superpower by claiming strength. I don’t suppose anyone in his circle will read this, but if they do they will find ways to be more effective if that’s what he (or you or anyone else) wants. And, of course, if you are trying to organise in a humane and effective way, don’t be like the Donald.

---

Dates and Mates

I have mentioned the work of George Lakoff and his Framelab group here before, and I’ll mention it again now. Nearly half a century ago Lakoff and Mark Johnson wrote Metaphors We Live By, an examination of how metaphors that can shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing them. He subsequently wrote about how this applies to politics, with Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2002) and Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (2004). Both books have been updated since, and offer key insights into how such a vile and self-centred individual like Trump can appeal to so many. (TLDR: they think those qualities are good things.) His Framelab Substack is a great place to tune in:

https://substack.com/@framelab

In terms of how to respond to Trump’s reappearance, I can’t think of a better idea than that espoused by the man himself: fight, fight, fight! (Using the proper democratic systems, checks and balances, of course.)